July 11, 2006

desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded

Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now, with today's topic, here is

James White. And good morning, welcome to The Dividing Line.

It is a warm day here in Phoenix, Arizona, heading, it's already 101 degrees, 11 o 'clock in the morning, heading for a high, at least according to this one, of 111.

I've heard 110. And for those of you, that's 38 degrees for all of my

UK listening audience. And the high then, what was that, about 44, something like that, somewhere around that area.

Had to get used to that because I just got back from the United Kingdom, wonderful time once again with all of the saints.

And there is a quick time, only a week this particular point in time, but still a wonderful opportunity to speak at the

Metropolitan Tabernacle in the School of Theology and to meet all the wonderful folks there.

And of course, I had never been to the School of Theology before, but had the opportunity of meeting folks from literally all over the world there and to speak on two topics, not really closely related, but the

Da Vinci Code. And then I did basically a presentation on how the Evangelical Church today is functionally non -Trinitarian, not anti -Trinitarian, but non -Trinitarian.

And ironically, I got back and a couple of folks had sent me a URL to Greg Stafford announcing that he's going back to the

Kingdom Hall, which I found most interesting. I had, in talking with Mr.

Stafford at our debate in 2003, in fact, he mentions me in this discussion, had detected,

I don't know, some, you know, I had mentioned to him, I said to him straight up, I said, you know, you're in a tough situation, what are you going to do?

And evidently that situation continues and now he's headed back to visiting on a limited basis the

Kingdom Hall. He has spoken with the elders there. And again, this continues to be a fascinating situation to me.

I've said for many years now, in fact, I think it was 98 that the Evangelical Theological Society presented a paper on Mr.

Stafford and I mentioned at that time that he will be a test case for the society as to how they're going to handle internal, not so much protest as difference of opinion from someone who obviously knows the issues, can provide documentation, things like that.

And so keep an eye on what's what's going on with Dave, with Greg Stafford. So anyway,

I spoke on that subject and the pictures on the blog, especially the real nice picture that Brother Compton took for me from up in the balcony.

Thankfully, you can't tell that I am absolutely dripping wet in that picture.

Roger Brazier and I had gotten caught in a downpour and I should make this known across the world that Priscilla Brazier said, take an umbrella.

But Roger said no. And we got nailed. I mean,

I came through the doors 15 minutes before I was supposed to speak. I had water flowing down my head and for some reason it was stinging my eyes.

I could barely see where I was going. I'm surprised I didn't bowl some poor little old lady over trying to get to the restroom back near the speaker's room.

And I'm mopping myself off. I'm shaking my my suit jacket out and it's just spraying water everywhere.

Sorry about that. If anyone came in and slipped on that. And for some odd reason, the paper towels are green.

And as I'm dabbing my suit off and my tie off and my shirt off and stuff. And of course, it's very humid.

So I'm sweating like anything as well. So I've just been through this downpour. I get all these little green fibers all over the, you know,

I stood there in front of a fan in the speaker's room until right before I had to go out just trying to dry myself off.

So you see that picture and the subtitle in my mind is drip, drip. It's just I hope

I didn't leave like a puddle up there behind the behind the podium. It was just terrible. I just got nailed.

And so it was. Yep, I needed the Brawley. I needed the Brawley big time.

We got we got nailed. So anyway, and of course, of course, poor Roger, he's wearing a light tan jacket.

Now, at least my jacket was dark charcoal color. So you really can't you couldn't tell unless you touched me that I was that I was soaked literally to the skin.

I mean, straight through. But Roger, he's wearing tan. What happens when that gets soaked?

It's it's a bad it's a bad thing. So it was but, you know, you try to put that kind of thing behind you.

You try not to be thinking about it. And of course, once you get up there in the Metropolitan Tabernacle and start talking to folks, you you get focused on what you're you're speaking about.

And I but I haven't mentioned on the blog, but I'll mention to you folks. Yeah, I was more than one person has mentioned that that was my

Methodist baptism of some sorts, because, you know, obviously

I definitely had sprinkled. But I believe and I didn't ask

Peter Masters this and I probably should have, but I'm pretty certain about ninety nine percent certain that I am the first person to have ever spoken from the pulpit of the

Metropolitan Tabernacle using nothing but a tablet PC. Probably no one's ever used a palm either.

I could have could have captured both records if I just switched between the two. But I used only my tablet

PC and. Someone just said being soaked isn't being sprinkled well, when you're sprinkled for, you know, like 10 minutes straight heavily, the result is being soaked.

So it was a it was a it was a Baptist Methodist baptism. OK, it was sort of in between. I looked like I had been dunked, but I only got the sprinkling part.

So anyway, let's not get into that subject today. But I think I was definitely the first one to have ever used just a tablet

PC in my presentation from the tabernacles. Well, you know, something to remember when

I'm old next year, which is right around the corner, probably eight, seven, seven, seven, five, three, three, four.

And we last time we were together, we were listening to Dr. Page Patterson's comments at the

Southern Mass Convention in his dialogue with Al Moeller. By the way, I have some before we get back in that I have some new

CDs that I'm I'm right now, even just a few moments before the program started, was converting to MP3 to load into my my little mini iPod to carry while writing and listen to some stuff.

I have Johnny Hunt's series on theology that he presented,

I believe, to his youth this summer. And I'm converting those because there's a good deal of discussion of divine sovereignty and human responsibility and things like that.

And so we'll want to review that. And then Rich gave me some CDs today that came in while I was over in the

UK. And they were accompanied with this note.

See, there we go. I'm not sure why someone gets paid millions and millions and millions of dollars to do that.

And all it is is just just doing that. June 21st, 2006 to James White, here are seven

CDs from a great Catholic apologist associated with EWTN. I don't think you stand a chance in refuting him.

So I figured you would like to meet your match. He has already eaten your lunch. So listen and weep.

Listen to Once Saved, Always Saved first, because of Mary and Jesus, Jay Lee.

I hope no one who likes what we do around here would ever write a note like that to somebody and send my

CDs to somebody. I mean, I don't even want to. I would like to think maybe that whoever it is on this

CD and they're in on my desk. Who was Monteganu or whatever it is.

Rich said he started listening to some of it. And that this guy is would you if you just listen to him, remember years and years ago,

I forget how long ago it was, but one day on the dividing line. Yeah, sure. Everybody remembers this. Actually, I have run into like three or four people who've listened to every dividing line.

They're scary. They're very, very scary people. There's one. This is the

Bible Christian Society in Pleasant Grove. Alabama. And this is John Martignani, M -A -T -R -I -G -N -O -N -I,

Martignoni possibly. But anyway, and Once Saved, Always Saved.

Yeah. And so I'll listen to him. I'll MP3 him and listen to him all writing and might make a great

Radio Free Geneva because from what Rich said, this guy could be Dan Corner, Dan Corner with a

Mary Complex. You know, it's sort of put together and a lot of the arguments identical, just the exact same stuff.

And remember a few years ago on the dividing line, I played a section from what was it?

I know I put Carl Keating and Dave Hunt right next to each other saying the exact same thing about predestination election, because when it comes to that issue and the issue of God's grace, man's will, look,

Dave Hunt, Carl Keating, they're on the same page. They say the same thing. You know, that's that's all there is to it.

So we'll listen to those and try to get them set up for the program as well, even though there won't be a problem, any program next week, will there?

No, no program next week. Couldn't talk that one particular guy into actually, you know, trying to do it.

No, tried. Well, we tried, you know, we, you know, anyway.

Oh, well. So there's no program next week. And it's not because I'm gone. Actually, for some weird reason,

Rich wants to go someplace. And yeah, yeah, yeah. You can imagine what would happen, huh?

Just an explosion, you know, boom. Rich wants to go someplace. So I can't do this program.

You know, I probably could as long as we didn't take calls. I could get the thing started and turn on the mic, pop the music down, scream as I run in.

Hold on, I'm coming. Sit down, throw the microphone on and we have there we go. And as long as I'm just playing stuff, you know, it's possible.

So who knows? Maybe if you could put a if you could put a checklist together for me,

I might be able to do it. It's worth a shot, you know, I mean, given how old you are, man,

I mean, you could drop any second. See, right there.

We need to have a backup program here, something would be good to have a have a checklist there.

Place place Skyman sermon from 2004. That's right. Oh, oh, that was

Unical Man. OK, rich, just rich, just waved and left and he looked really sad. Unical Man is a very mean person and he just he just crushed for Rich's spirits and some of you have no idea what the world we're talking about.

That's OK, because this is a live webcast and we do not pretend at a very high level of professionalism.

Anyhow. All right. We continue on with. Yeah, see now you're getting some support there.

See, coach said poor rich. And even though coach can't spell his own name, he hit that little zero button there. But other than that.

See, if you don't if you don't go in channel when it's when it's live, what can what can we say? You don't you don't get to see what's going on.

Anyhow, back to Paige Patterson, by the way, be listening carefully. I listen to this now.

I was a little distracted. I was doing other stuff. I think I was working on a desk or something while I was listening to it. So I was a little distracted.

So I didn't catch this first time around. Alan in Atlanta caught it, pointed out to me.

I went back and listened and he was right. But listen carefully in this next section, because something we all have heard before will.

It's going to happen again. And after a while, you just start chuckling at this. So just just keep a keep an ear out here.

Let's continue on with what Paige Patterson was saying. Now, let me move in the final analysis to what

I call doing evangelism or why I believe my perspective assists me in doing evangelism.

This is by way of testimony. First of all, I believe it is God's will to save all.

Listen to what first Timothy two, three to six says, for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our

Savior, who desires all men to be saved. Now, again, how many times have we heard the context less citation of first Timothy two, four and second

Peter three, nine and Matthew twenty three, thirty seven. And in a conversation like this, if I were to be talking with the

Armenian parallel to Al Mohler, I would want to at least present my comments on this text, demonstrating that I know what the other side is going to say, that I at least know the arguments they're going to they're going to present.

And I know they're going to talk about Christ mediation and the nature of intercession.

And so there's there is there are ways in which you could try to present the idea that you know what?

I know where you're coming from here. I know that there's another way of looking at this. And this is why I don't accept your exegesis or I think this is a better way to read it.

You know, you could at least say something along the lines of now in first Timothy two, four, I believe we have a universal will of God expressed in salvation.

What you could do is you could you could actually quote some reform folks that actually view it that way. And still say some long lines of and I and I understand that we need to discuss questions about the extent of Christ mediation, but I still think that this presents a universal salvific will.

At least you could give some indication that you've listened to the other side. I think that's the thing that frustrates so many of us is we don't we don't see that indication.

We don't we don't get any idea that we're going to get anything out of the other side than the same shallow repetition of the same text that don't indicate any respect for the other side in the sense of listening and and responding in some fashion.

I think that's what frustrates a lot of us at that point. And therefore gave himself a ransom for all.

Listen to second Peter three, nine. The Lord is not slack concerning his promises. Some count slackness, but his long suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I believe it is the will of God that all men should be saved. Now, the

Calvinist must fall back on the idea of two wills of God, a revealed will and a secret will.

The problem with the secret will, of course, that it is secret and we cannot know about that at all.

Not only that, it pits the secret will in juxtaposition and over against his revealed will.

Now, even if that were true and I. Again, is it is it not the case that Dr.

Patterson has to address the exact same issues? It's one thing to raise the objection, but does he not have the exact same?

Isn't it very clear if he says it is God's will that all to be saved and God's will is to be accomplished, then which will determined creation, which will was guiding in creation?

Or was there any will guiding in creation at all? I mean, this raises all the same issues. All the same things have to keep coming up.

This side has to answer these questions, but we don't see any answers being being offered, which

I find to be impossible. So I believe rather that Ken Keithley, it is excellent article salvation and the sovereignty of God is right to say, no, there is an antecedent will and a consequent will of God.

His antecedent will is that all men should be saved. But because all men do not respond to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, his consequent will is that they be given that choice and be given the privilege of saying no to Christ and yes to eternity in hell.

Now, again, how do you understand that? How do you how do you that sounds like something far more complex and troubling than any superlapsarian, infralapsarian, modified superlapsarian, sublapsarian type of discussion?

Because now, evidently, within God's own will, there is determinative man's will.

And so now you have temporality, you have God's will being determined by human actions. What happens to the eternity of God?

What happens to God's? How does God have all knowledge of all future events? How does how does any of that work out?

Introducing this kind of language isn't solving anything. It only it only raises even more troubling issues in regards to God's actual purposes in creation itself.

Number two, I believe that his death on the cross constitutes an atonement for the entire race.

I believe the Bible bears out the universal nature of the atonement. Now, before he gets into it, what is atonement?

I mean, I've told the story many times before, I remember doing the dividing line back when we did it on a radio station back in the 1980s, mid 1980s, about 20 years ago now, sitting in a studio.

I remember which studio it was, but I'm not sure exactly which where it was located. I remember sitting in this studio,

I think it was KXEG at the time. And this we were talking about election.

And even as a Southern Baptist, I had believed in the doctrine of election. And I had

I had been raised with the doctrine of election. I've mentioned many times that my my father was a graduate of the

Bible Institute. And the first systematic theology I ever saw, the first systematic theology ever opened up, the spine was was gone.

It was the covers were held on with with tape was P .B. Fitzwater's systematic theology.

And P .B. Fitzwater was a Presbyterian and Presbyterians back in the 40s and 50s generally still believed in things called like predestination election.

And so I had had that concept as part of my upbringing. I remember very clearly going to Glorietta, New Mexico, to the conference center there and one particular summer, just struggling,

I believe, as a junior in high school with with these issues and trying to figure them out and and pacing around the the the lake there at Glorietta, trying to visualize how this worked.

I mean, yeah, I know as a junior high school, those are the things I was thinking about and and struggling with and working through.

And so it wasn't anything new to believe in God's election. But the idea of limited atonement, I'd never actually heard it particularly expounded in a biblical fashion, of course.

And it was in reading a book on the five points of Calvinism. It was Dwayne Spencer's book where he asks a simple question when he talks about the atonement.

He says, well, did he or didn't he? Was it an atonement or was it not an atonement?

Did he atone for sins or not atone for sins? This this theoretical hypothetical element of it, where do you get that from?

If he substituted, if it was a real substitution, then either it accomplished atonement or it didn't.

This theoretical part about, well, you know, it may or it may not. But it's actually not up to God. It's not the father, son, spiritist where that that is accomplished.

It's actually up to the man and and blah, blah, blah, blah. Where does that come from? And that was where I really was was forced to to work through.

The the idea of what atonement is, and of course, then you combine that with any meaningful reading of the book of Hebrews and you're really stuck with this, this idea of a perfect atonement.

And so Dr. Patterson is about to talk about atonement. Well, if he's going to do so, then he's got to do so in light of Owen.

He's got to do so in light of Calvin. He's got to do so in light of Spurgeon. He's got to do so in light of of what has been said on these issues.

Will he do so? Well, that's another reason why this this kind of a format where you don't have meaningful interaction just can't answer these questions.

And Isaiah 53, six, all we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way.

And the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all. Who is the us all?

Do do lost people rejoice as you have in Isaiah 53 in the laying of their sins upon the substitute

Messiah? Is this are these the words of Muslims? Are these the words of Mormons?

Are these the words of those who who are not in obedience to Christ and who do not bow the knee to God's truth in regards to the cross?

Can the people in hell quote Isaiah 53 of themselves? Of course not.

There's nothing about Isaiah 53 to us all. Assumption, every human being can say that my response, prove it, prove it.

Will he be challenged on that? I don't believe so. The all we like sheep that have gone astray, the same word all in the end, he gave, he placed upon him the iniquity of us all.

Now, there there you go. Now, there someone might say, ah, see, there is an exegetical argument that is being put forward.

It's the same word all. And so if it's all of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way.

The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him. That means since everyone sinned, that means Christ has borne everyone's sin.

Now, sit back for just a moment. Lay your prejudices aside and think.

Think. Is that a valid argument? All have sinned. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, but the

Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him. Think about it a moment.

What is the the logical breakdown here? Where did that where the argument go wrong? It goes wrong.

It doesn't it doesn't follow. It's real simple. All of the elect can say those words, that does not mean that all humanity would say those words.

Every single one who is saved was a sinner. That does it does not follow, however, that that means that the iniquity of every single human being was laid upon Christ.

All have sinned, all have fallen in Adam, right? Romans chapter five, all have fallen in Adam.

Do all receive life in Christ? No, there's two humanities there. So while we share one area, all have fallen in Adam, only a certain number.

Unless again, you're a universalist. Unless again, you're going to you're going to turn this into universal salvation.

Only those who are in Christ receive justification unto life, not just theoretically, but in reality.

And so while all mankind can say. I am fallen in Adam, only those in Christ receive justification of the life.

And so just because the word all is used doesn't mean that all always refers to the same group in totality.

That's just a logical error that you could turn into, you know, any type of any number of absurd arguments if you wanted to, but that's just simply not a valid argument in any way, shape or form.

Whatever all means in the first case, it has to mean in the second case. No, as I just said, that is that is completely false.

Use just because every one of the elect is a sinner. If you try to use the argumentation that Dr.

Patterson just used, and it amazes me that he would use this argumentation, it truly does, because it seems it's so obvious upon reflection.

All of the elect sinned. Does that mean that everyone who sins is of the elect?

That's the argumentation. That's what he just said. All has to mean all. All elect are sinners, therefore all sinners are elect.

You can't a you can't. Logically, it breaks down at every single point. And yet that is the argumentation that was just presented to us.

And it. It amazes me, but that's that's what you run into. Listen to Hebrews two nine.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angel for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor that he might, by the grace of God, taste of death for every man.

Everybody is included in those for whom he tasted death. Now, does he go past that?

Does he go past just that one citation, read the rest of it, talk about the brothers and those who are chosen?

No, he doesn't. You just take a little thing that's going to support your position. You know that this has been addressed by many people over and over.

He's got to he's got to know that. But you string these things together and you make your point.

And I, I, I cannot tell anybody why someone in Dr. Patterson's position would do this.

I don't I can't judge motivations. I don't know my gut feeling where I start with all these folks is this is their tradition.

This is what they've been comfortable with. And my experience is in the vast majority of instances, once the subject comes up, the ears turn off, the mind turns off.

You just go back to your default stuff you got in Bible college and you just go on from there. And that's why you don't see any recognition of what the issues are that are being that are being addressed.

Listen to First Timothy four, 10, for to this end, we both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living

God, who is the savior of all men, but especially of those who believe.

Now, again, I'm not sure. You know, what is what does that mean?

What do you want Savior to mean at that point is what is the accomplishment I guess is the is the question

I want to ask in in presenting from his perspective, that idea of all men.

And that means just in a in a theoretical sense, in a in a way that that can't have any particular meaning.

What how does he deal with with malice? I just quote in our in our channel, a quotation of my

Howard Marshall. I, Howard Marshall, is no reformed theologian, but in his commentary says adoption of the traditional translation of Malista as especially leads to some strained exegesis.

These problems disappear if we accept the other possible translation to be precise. Namely, I mean, all is thus limited here to believers.

I, Howard Marshall and P .H. Town of the Pastoral Epistles, T .N .T. Clark, 1999, page 556.

If you would like to look that up. The atonement is universal, though accepted by only those who believe.

Again, in first in second Peter to one, he speaks of men who have been carried away with heresies and who deny the

Lord who bought them, even them. The Lord had paid the price for our finally in first.

Well, this again, ignoring all the issues, the difference between courteous despotism, the fact that purchase price is always mentioned in any redemptive context.

See the article on second Peter to one on the website, just flying by that stuff. And that again,

I suppose if you're only presenting this to folks who have never, ever, ever discussed this before or there's been no preceding discussion of something like that.

OK, maybe I can understand that, but that's not the case. This is a president of a theological seminary.

There are all sorts of people on his staff that knows that there's there's tons of stuff behind this. And is he just going to assume.

That that the answers that have been given from the Armenian perspective, the anti reform perspective are just so overwhelmingly good, you don't have to even give an indication that you know about the other perspective.

I don't know. John to one and two are in first John one, two, two, two, he says, and he paid this price, the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world again.

That's an even stronger term, propitiation, that which takes away wrath, where is the place of God, where is the place of the wrath of God upon the whole world, if this is true, if you make whole world here, not

Jews and Gentiles. But every single human being, if you if you ignore the ancient context, you make it a

Western individualistic thing, which isn't even a part of the context begin with, if you do that, then why is it that God's wrath is being revealed if it has been propitiated?

Isn't that what propitiation means? See, this is what eventually leads folks to the to the mistranslation of that term is expiation and losing the aspect of wrath, because once you do that, this is why universalism,

Arminianism historically breaks down into universalism for these very reasons.

Look at what look at what has happened to the Methodists. Look at what has happened to that denomination. Someone I say, well, yeah, well, look at your your liberal

Presbyterians, too. Well, that's they no longer believe in the authority, the word of God. That's one of the main problems there. But that's that's a whole nother issue.

Believing that everyone may will to come to Christ and that the appeal of the gospel is to all.

I believe it affects my ministry as an evangelist of the gospel. Now, stop right there and think for just a moment.

Believing that every person has that capacity. Now, if you're going to make that statement and you actually know the field.

Then what are you going to have to deal with? I mean, if you're going to make a just a blanket statement like that, that our evangelistic methodology should be based upon the idea.

That every person has the capacity in of themselves to come to Christ.

Every equally. And, you know, the Bible and, you know, this field, what would you be under,

I would imagine, a moral obligation to address John 6, 44.

Jesus's own words. No man has the ability to come unto me. Now, even if you're just going to offer the a contextual, eisegetical, really bad jump out of John six, go to John 12, at least try.

I mean, that one fails, too. That one can be shot down and should be shot down. But still not even a.

Who are you trying to convince here is really the question. That's what I'd like to know. I mean, if you're talking to Al Mohler about this kind of stuff, don't you need to.

Go a little bit farther. Do do a little something more. Again, I know

I believe that humans may resist the gospel. Hence, the gospel is not irresistible.

Jesus pled with Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ones who killed the prophets and stoned them that are sent her.

How often would I have gathered you you together as chickens, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.

But you were not willing or again in Hebrews 10 catch it.

To catch it, there it is again. There it is again, if you missed it, let me play it again.

Well, Jesus pled with Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ones who killed the prophets and stoned them that are sent her.

How often would I have gathered you you together as chickens, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings?

But you were not willing. There it is.

How many times now I've lost track. I mean, we caught R .C. Sproul doing this once. The whole

Dave Hunt thing started with his misquoting it. He later called it a paraphrase in his newsletter.

How many people have we caught misquoting this thing? We've caught Geisler misquoting it. Now we're catching

Paige Patterson misquoting it. That's not what Matthew 23, 37 says.

So of all these people repeatedly miscited, missing the the vital distinction that the one

Jesus, the ones Jesus wants to gather. And you have to assume this means in some soteriological method, in some soteriological context and ignore the context that this is actually judgment on the

Jewish leaders, ignoring all that stuff. There is a difference in Matthew 23, 37 between gathering your children and you were not willing.

What were you not willing to be gathered? No, you were not willing to let Christ gather your children.

This is talking about the Jewish leaders and their resistance to Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem. If you can constantly miscite that.

What does this mean about the thickness of the lens of the tradition glasses that you have glued to your face?

You're not listening to the text. The text is no longer your ultimate authority here.

Your traditions have become your ultimate authority in this context.

And that's what you have going on here. And that's what I hadn't missed. I hadn't heard. I hadn't missed it. I was distracted or something.

I was just going, OK, 1 Timothy 2, 4, 2 Peter 3, 9. I wonder when Matthew 23, 37 is going to show up.

And, you know, eventually it did. And I and I missed that one. But just miscites it while still making the you were not willing.

Yeah. And that's the whole point of Jesus' condemnation of them was their unwillingness to allow

God to do what God wanted to do in Jerusalem had nothing to do with the application being made here about man's ability to thwart the divine intention of God in self -glorification and salvation.

Or again, in Hebrews 10, 39, but we are not of those who draw back into perdition, but of those who respond to the saving of the soul.

What that has to do with anything here, I haven't a clue. Finally, I believe it is my position as a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ to do all

I can to persuade men everywhere to come to Christ. And I do, too.

And that's why I do what I do. And that's why I do what I do in context that people who follow

Patterson's viewpoint won't. In fact, it's Patterson's viewpoint that leads to this methodology where you you use surveys to examine your area and you craft your message to try to meet what people want and because you're focused upon the man rather than upon the spirit of God who raises man to spiritual life.

OK, we need to keep that in mind. It didn't really come out, I think, as sharply as it should have in this type of a context.

But again, to even raise this issue in this way. Demonstrates a misunderstanding of the subject that's being addressed.

Paul says that's what he did. Luke mentions this in Acts 17 and 1730 when he says when

Paul says, truly, the times of this ignorance God overlooked. But now he commands all men everywhere to repent.

Which, again, perfectly consistent with Reformed theology. The only reason that you would ever raise this is you don't understand

Reformed theology and are unfamiliar with how it understands the concept of ordaining both the ends and the means, our privilege in being the proclaimers and being used, etc.,

etc. In Acts 18 .4, he met with them on the Sabbath and persuaded both

Jews and Greeks. He persuaded them. And again, wonderful.

Great. I try to persuade, I'm trying to persuade people right now. I try to persuade

Muslims. I try to persuade Mormons. But I recognize that I am but an instrument in the hand.

It is not within my ability to change the heart. And it's not within the ability of the sinner to change their own heart.

But because I don't know the identity of the elect, then I can proclaim to all men.

And I don't have to try to figure out who the elect are. Why be persuading them if it's already determined?

Again, fundamental misunderstanding. Fundamental misunderstanding.

Theology 101 level. This is why I say these gentlemen, God bless them.

But they heard this in their first year of Bible college and it sunk in and it hasn't been dislodged since.

There's no evidence that I can see that they've ever sat back and gone, well, wait a minute.

Well, wait a minute. That doesn't make any sense. That's actually a surface level response that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

What he just said is not, it completely ignores God's right to use means to accomplish.

There is no divine decree then, Dr. Patterson. He who knows the end from the beginning.

He only knows that because he passively took in knowledge of it. It wasn't because he determined it. I mean, you open just a

Pandora's box with that kind of assertion, a Pandora's box of unchristian theism at that point.

But nothing's nothing said about it, but he's persuading them. And then again, when he's before Agrippa and he says,

Agrippa, I know you believe the prophets. I know you believe. And Agrippa said to Paul, almost you persuade me to become a

Christian. Now, whether or not that was said facetiously or not, as some believe, the fact is he knew what

Paul was doing. He was persuading him, which again, all of this absolutely positively nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It's completely irrelevant. It's a red herring canard. Again, he persuaded them concerning Jesus, both from the law and the prophets are again in first Corinthians nine.

Twenty two. I've become all things to all men that I might by all means save some are finally into Corinthians five, eleven and twenty, knowing therefore the terror of the

Lord. We persuade men and now then we are ambassadors for Christ as though God were pleading through us.

We implore you in Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the position that I hold with regard to election and its meaning is that this is a position which places in my soul a fire to reach people for Christ literally around the world.

One of these days, again, that sounds wonderful and it sounds like he's preaching. And I imagine there's a lot of folks just under their breath going, amen, amen, amen.

But the problem is the last three minutes were completely irrelevant. I mean, after misquoting

Matthew twenty three thirty seven, there's nothing there is absolutely. He didn't bother to lay the foundation for saying if you're

Calvinist that you cannot try to persuade people. Well, it's all determined. Yeah, but I don't know who it is.

So I am called to faithfully proclaim the message of my master. And when

I see that that that message take root and take fruit. It's not because that guy is better than somebody else.

It's not because I'm better than somebody else. No one can take any glory of that except God. That's why when

Paul writes the Corinthians, he can, without exception, say to them, it is by his doing that you are in Christ Jesus.

He didn't say now some of you it's by his doing and some of you it's by your doing and some of you it's combination. No, it is by his doing, not by his making a plan available.

It is by his doing that you are in Christ Jesus. Not too long from now,

I will stand at the Bema, the judgment seat of Christ with one foot in the grave and one on a banana peel.

It may be sooner than later. And I'll stand there at the

Bema, the Lord will say one or two things to me. He'll either say, well, Paige, you didn't quite get it.

You should have been more of a Calvinist. You should have figured this out. But I believe that if he says that after chastising me for my failure to see it as he intended it, that he's still going to say, but I will say this,

Paige, I'm thankful that you had a passion for lost people for whom

I die. And then, on the other hand, it may just be possible that at the Bema, he will say, well,

Paige, you gave your life to nothing other than the world. The only thing that ever kept you up late at night or woke you up in the middle of the night was what about the six point five billion lost people on the face of the globe?

Paige, I want to say to you, that's the heart that I wanted every one of my people to have.

I think that's what's going to happen. And based on that, I hold my view of election and seek to get the gospel to every man on the face of the globe.

Now, again, I can see why that why that flies in certain contexts.

Personally, I don't think our motivation is ever supposed to be on some theoretical reward or words spoken at a judgment that we don't even begin to know.

God has given us his word and we are called to be faithful in a proclamation thereof. And we're called to show a little bit more respect,

I think, than just simply repeat verses without listening to what people say about those verses and point out to us that we've missed.

I'm sorry. I just it's very difficult for me to listen to that and go, hey, man, oh, yeah, because there's so much is being lost there.

So much is being missed there. It's almost sounds like, well, it's like it's all come out in the wash. This really doesn't matter.

How I approach the word of God here. Apply that kind of reasoning to all sorts of other things. What if this was a dialogue between a

Trinitarian and a Benetarian? What if this was a dialogue between a

Trinitarian and a Oneness Pentecostal? Because that kind of dialogue is taking place. And that's the very kind of response that's being given is, hey, we're all promoting

Jesus. What does it really matter? I mean, you know, come on. Now, thankfully, most people see the difference there, but are we really to assert that there is less clear revelation on God's divine decree and his purposes and salvation than there is on the relationship of the

Father, Son and Holy Spirit as divine persons? Is there that much of a disparity in the biblical data?

No, there's an inconsistency there in how we are handling these things and the obligatory.

OK, now we got questions. We'll begin with our question and answers from Dr. Patterson and Dr. Moeller. Now, to me, it seemed like the

Calvinists got hold of the question guy. But still, let's begin with question number 11 in Ephesians 2, a for by grace, you are say through faith that not of yourselves.

It is the gift of God. Does the phrase and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God refer to grace or to faith?

Which of you would like to begin? I'm happy to begin. And the answer would be yes. And I think that's a false dichotomy.

I mean, in Ephesians chapter two, in fact, in the entirety of Paul's theology and Ephesians one and Ephesians two, he's speaking of God's purpose to save and he's speaking of faith as a gift.

But we all believe that I want to say emphatically, I can't believe to be a Southern Baptist who can consider himself either

Calvinist or non -Calvinist to believe that faith is anything other than a gift. It is demonstrated in a human response and it is a duty.

We have a duty to preach the gospel in the center, has a duty to receive the gospel. But but we don't believe in persons who are able to to exercise faith without it being the gift of God.

Now, that, of course, is a response to and a rebuttal to something that Patterson has said earlier, and that is,

I believe that everyone has that capacity and you know, well put without any time to to then draw that out and point to the passages that clearly say that man is incapable of doing what is pleasing to God, that faith and and repentance are gifts of God.

And then the obvious question, if they are gifts of God, are they given to all or is this just an offered gift, but an ineffective gift?

And all the all the questions that come along with that. OK, Dr. Patterson, I would not fundamentally disagree with what

Dr. Mohler said. Grammatically, the verse has been subject to a great deal of debate among New Testament theologians as to exactly what modifies what we are certainly in agreement that grace is the gift of God by definition.

As to faith, I would also have to say that the Bible is very clear that no man comes to God except my father.

Draw him. So the effectual calling of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential to faith.

And yet I also believe that that verse does not violate the responsibility of the human being to exercise faith in Christ.

Now, what does that mean? It's fine to say that that's the thing that at this point you've got to go.

And OK, Dr. Mohler is being very nice. He says, absolutely. However, how does that fit with what

Dr. Patterson just got done saying? What is the effectual call? Is it effectual or not effectual or is it effectual depending upon the human will?

What does that mean? What does it mean that no man could come to me unless the father draws him?

What does that mean in light of your previous statement that every man has the capacity to do this of their own?

How do you put them together? Are you just going to throw your hands up and say there's mysteries, there's mysteries, there's mysteries and say we can't fit this together?

What are you going to do with it if you just leave it there? Then the person who's come to this meeting wanting some definitive answers is left going,

I don't understand. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. What do you actually mean there?

Question number ten. Is the SBC steering in a different direction when it comes to soteriology now as opposed to its early years?

Are the current leaders of the SBC differing in their understanding of the doctrines of grace as compared or opposed to the founders of the

SBC? Page, would you like to begin on that? Yes, I'd be happy to do that.

This is a discussion that's an old discussion. It's a discussion that predates

Calvin. It's a discussion that predates Augustine. It's a discussion that obviously exercised the interest of the writers of the

Old Testament. And so God's people have always struggled to try to figure out what is it that God has done on the one hand, and what is it for which we are responsible on the other?

Let me just interrupt that long enough to say, I don't think it's a matter of struggling.

I think it's a matter of acceptance. Job wasn't struggling to know what the truth was. Job was struggling with what the truth was and assimilating that in his life and living in light of it.

That's where the struggle is. It's not knowing. You can read Nebuchadnezzar's words, and unless you're going to say that he's wrong about that, then the constant and uncompromised and uncontradicted statement of the scriptures is that God does whatever he pleases in the heavens and the earth.

And you read Psalm 33, and the plans and intentions of man's heart are frustrated.

God's plans and intentions are accomplished. It's not a struggle there.

The struggle is applying that and living in light of it. It's not struggling to figure out what the truth is.

Now, the knowledge of the fact that when it comes to Southern Baptist life, who are

Johnny -come -latelys to the whole ecclesiastical discussion, the fact that both sides of this discussion are well -represented in Baptist life should come as no surprise.

And furthermore, I would like to underscore, as Dr. Mota already has, the tremendous importance of our thinking theologically and our considering these matters and talking about them.

I've argued for years that it is the one reason why you built seminary cafeterias.

It's an institution, Dr. Mota. Yeah, I know. They're related.

And if you've ever eaten seminary food, you know, you can't be talking about building them for the sake of the cuisine.

So you build them so that students will have a place to discuss Calvinism. So we shouldn't be surprised by the discussion.

It's a good discussion. It's a healthy discussion as long as we don't begin to anathematize one another for our various perspectives and as long as the discussion of this theology or any other theology does not become an impediment to the most important thing, which is getting the gospel of Christ to 6 .5

million people. Now, again, at that point, I think the helpful correctives provided in the sermon that I've linked to on my blog recently from the pastor down in Daytona Beach on the subject of the idol of evangelism.

Everything you hear here is about get the 6 .5 million people, get 6 .5 million people. You've heard nothing about the glory of God.

You've heard nothing about the health of the church, the building up the church, the edification of the saints. It's all the same emphasis.

And that becomes imbalanced because even if you look at Matthew 28, as you are going, or if you want to take it as an imperative, you can argue these things.

But as you go, go, make disciples, yes. Baptizing, yes.

That's not how you make them, but some people disagree with that. But then there's this little thing that disappears. Discipling them, teaching them to observe all that I've commanded you.

And I'm sorry, folks. I've been in the Southern Baptist evangelism mill.

I've been there. I've been on the outreach visits. And I've been in a situation where you're given an outreach card.

And you basically have to have the person come to the door with a shotgun three times in a row before they'll drop that outreach card.

You know, I mean, I've been there, been there, done that, got the t -shirt. I know how this works and the treadmill you're put on.

And the utter lack of meaningful discipleship. I mean, it was the same church that was pushing that kind of evangelistic methodology that also told me that when

I was teaching an adult Bible study class, that my mindset before every one of those

Bible study classes should be that every single person sitting in front of me, this was the very first time they'd ever been in a

Sunday school class. Every week. Don't build. Don't challenge. Don't grow. Treat everyone as if this is the first time they've ever walked into a

Bible study class because we don't want to scare anybody off. You can't build maturity that way.

Ever read Hebrews six? I'd like to address you as mature, but I got to stick with the milk.

Well, here's a whole system that creates nothing but milk. And that's what happens when you become imbalanced.

And that's what's going on here. Every family has a history and our family has a history.

And there is no doubt that there have been different twists and turns in the history just of the Southern Baptist Convention.

There can be no doubt that the basic historical rootage of our denomination was in persons who held unequivocally very boldly to what we would call is the doctrines of grace and a very clear, strong understanding of election.

And by the way, that that wasn't something that just got over in the 1840s. You look at people like B .H.

Carroll and J .B. Gambrell in the Texas tradition, you know, very, very strong in making these affirmations.

But there are twists and turns in our family's history. And some of the twists and turns in our history included the fact that we're part of a larger culture.

One of the issues we have to face as Southern Baptists is that the doctrine of election is not only an issue of good conversation among us, but so would be the doctrine of sin.

Because one of the things that's happened is that in this society, people have they no longer think of themselves as sinners.

And there's one of the issues for us in understanding the gospel, you know, just what do we think sin is as actualized in a person?

To whom do we think we're speaking? A person who's just somewhat immobilized by sin, somewhat afflicted by sin, or someone who is who has a will that is corrupt and is an enemy of God.

I didn't love that language. Paul did. And in other words, what what is the person who what is his state that we're speaking to as a sinner?

There are all kinds of issues here. This is a good discussion because we're talking about what the gospel is. And as Dr. Patterson mentioned, it's tied to a lot of other things.

In other words, you can't just take one doctrine as if you're slipping a card out of a deck. We're talking about threads in a tapestry.

And so there are a lot of good things for us here to discuss. And it is on much narrower ground than some people might like.

And I'll just I'll simply say that one of the issues from the founding until now is that now there are many

Southern Baptists who really haven't thought through how to connect the dots. And that's a part of maturity as a denomination.

You know, we're learning a little bit more how to connect the dots. We're going to have some good discussions about how that takes place. And I appreciate that.

I agree with everything that was just said. You've got to connect the dots. You've got to have a coherent systematic theology.

You can't just do this pulling a card out of the deck with the Bible as well, which is what Dr. Patterson was doing.

Let's face it. Let's be upfront about that and address it straight on and do so in calling everybody to obedience to the word of God.

Well, we will be back Thursday afternoon. Lord willing to continue this discussion. Take your phone calls as well. See you down the dividing line.